llvm-project/llvm/lib/CodeGen/CMakeLists.txt

133 lines
3.0 KiB
CMake
Raw Normal View History

add_llvm_library(LLVMCodeGen
AggressiveAntiDepBreaker.cpp
AllocationOrder.cpp
2010-06-15 12:08:14 +08:00
Analysis.cpp
AtomicExpandPass.cpp
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an analysis group that supports layered implementations much like AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it. The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on implementation. The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results for the second API. The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other information in the target independent code generator. The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes. The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom logic that was previously in their extensions of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces. I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself. Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their customized TTI implementations. The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence, a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only change that could have been committed separately, it would have been a nightmare to extract. The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the tools for manually constructing a pass based around them. Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent commits, this one is clearly big enough. Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots. I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks. Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently. llvm-svn: 171681
2013-01-07 09:37:14 +08:00
BasicTargetTransformInfo.cpp
BranchFolding.cpp
CalcSpillWeights.cpp
CallingConvLower.cpp
CodeGen.cpp
CodeGenPrepare.cpp
CoreCLRGC.cpp
CriticalAntiDepBreaker.cpp
DFAPacketizer.cpp
DeadMachineInstructionElim.cpp
Add a new codegen pass that normalizes dwarf exception handling code in preparation for code generation. The main thing it does is handle the case when eh.exception calls (and, in a future patch, eh.selector calls) are far away from landing pads. Right now in practice you only find eh.exception calls close to landing pads: either in a landing pad (the common case) or in a landing pad successor, due to loop passes shifting them about. However future exception handling improvements will result in calls far from landing pads: (1) Inlining of rewinds. Consider the following case: In function @f: ... invoke @g to label %normal unwind label %unwinds ... unwinds: %ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception() ... In function @g: ... invoke @something to label %continue unwind label %handler ... handler: %ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception() ... perform cleanups ... "rethrow exception" Now inline @g into @f. Currently this is turned into: In function @f: ... invoke @something to label %continue unwind label %handler ... handler: %ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception() ... perform cleanups ... invoke "rethrow exception" to label %normal unwind label %unwinds unwinds: %ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception() ... However we would like to simplify invoke of "rethrow exception" into a branch to the %unwinds label. Then %unwinds is no longer a landing pad, and the eh.exception call there is then far away from any landing pads. (2) Using the unwind instruction for cleanups. It would be nice to have codegen handle the following case: invoke @something to label %continue unwind label %run_cleanups ... handler: ... perform cleanups ... unwind This requires turning "unwind" into a library call, which necessarily takes a pointer to the exception as an argument (this patch also does this unwind lowering). But that means you are using eh.exception again far from a landing pad. (3) Bugpoint simplifications. When bugpoint is simplifying exception handling code it often generates eh.exception calls far from a landing pad, which then causes codegen to assert. Bugpoint then latches on to this assertion and loses sight of the original problem. Note that it is currently rare for this pass to actually do anything. And in fact it normally shouldn't do anything at all given the code coming out of llvm-gcc! But it does fire a few times in the testsuite. As far as I can see this is almost always due to the LoopStrengthReduce codegen pass introducing pointless loop preheader blocks which are landing pads and only contain a branch to another block. This other block contains an eh.exception call. So probably by tweaking LoopStrengthReduce a bit this can be avoided. llvm-svn: 72276
2009-05-23 04:36:31 +08:00
DwarfEHPrepare.cpp
EarlyIfConversion.cpp
EdgeBundles.cpp
ErlangGC.cpp
ExecutionDepsFix.cpp
ExpandISelPseudos.cpp
ExpandPostRAPseudos.cpp
GCMetadata.cpp
GCMetadataPrinter.cpp
GCRootLowering.cpp
GCStrategy.cpp
GlobalMerge.cpp
IfConversion.cpp
InlineSpiller.cpp
InterferenceCache.cpp
IntrinsicLowering.cpp
LLVMTargetMachine.cpp
LatencyPriorityQueue.cpp
LexicalScopes.cpp
LiveDebugVariables.cpp
LiveInterval.cpp
LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp
LiveIntervalUnion.cpp
LiveRangeCalc.cpp
LiveRangeEdit.cpp
LiveRegMatrix.cpp
LivePhysRegs.cpp
LiveStackAnalysis.cpp
LiveVariables.cpp
2010-08-14 09:55:09 +08:00
LocalStackSlotAllocation.cpp
MachineBasicBlock.cpp
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo.cpp
Implement a block placement pass based on the branch probability and block frequency analyses. This differs substantially from the existing block-placement pass in LLVM: 1) It operates on the Machine-IR in the CodeGen layer. This exposes much more (and more precise) information and opportunities. Also, the results are more stable due to fewer transforms ocurring after the pass runs. 2) It uses the generalized probability and frequency analyses. These can model static heuristics, code annotation derived heuristics as well as eventual profile loading. By basing the optimization on the analysis interface it can work from any (or a combination) of these inputs. 3) It uses a more aggressive algorithm, both building chains from tho bottom up to maximize benefit, and using an SCC-based walk to layout chains of blocks in a profitable ordering without O(N^2) iterations which the old pass involves. The pass is currently gated behind a flag, and not enabled by default because it still needs to grow some important features. Most notably, it needs to support loop aligning and careful layout of loop structures much as done by hand currently in CodePlacementOpt. Once it supports these, and has sufficient testing and quality tuning, it should replace both of these passes. Thanks to Nick Lewycky and Richard Smith for help authoring & debugging this, and to Jakob, Andy, Eric, Jim, and probably a few others I'm forgetting for reviewing and answering all my questions. Writing a backend pass is *sooo* much better now than it used to be. =D llvm-svn: 142641
2011-10-21 14:46:38 +08:00
MachineBlockPlacement.cpp
MachineBranchProbabilityInfo.cpp
MachineCSE.cpp
MachineCombiner.cpp
MachineCopyPropagation.cpp
MachineDominators.cpp
MachineDominanceFrontier.cpp
MachineFunction.cpp
2009-08-01 02:50:22 +08:00
MachineFunctionAnalysis.cpp
MachineFunctionPass.cpp
MachineFunctionPrinterPass.cpp
MachineInstr.cpp
MachineInstrBundle.cpp
MachineLICM.cpp
MachineLoopInfo.cpp
MachineModuleInfo.cpp
MachineModuleInfoImpls.cpp
MachinePassRegistry.cpp
MachinePostDominators.cpp
MachineRegisterInfo.cpp
MachineRegionInfo.cpp
2009-12-03 06:19:31 +08:00
MachineSSAUpdater.cpp
MachineScheduler.cpp
2010-01-13 09:02:47 +08:00
MachineSink.cpp
MachineTraceMetrics.cpp
MachineVerifier.cpp
OcamlGC.cpp
OptimizePHIs.cpp
PHIElimination.cpp
PHIEliminationUtils.cpp
Passes.cpp
PeepholeOptimizer.cpp
PostRASchedulerList.cpp
2009-11-04 09:32:06 +08:00
ProcessImplicitDefs.cpp
PrologEpilogInserter.cpp
PseudoSourceValue.cpp
RegAllocBase.cpp
RegAllocBasic.cpp
RegAllocFast.cpp
RegAllocGreedy.cpp
RegAllocPBQP.cpp
RegisterClassInfo.cpp
RegisterCoalescer.cpp
2012-04-25 02:06:49 +08:00
RegisterPressure.cpp
RegisterScavenging.cpp
ScheduleDAG.cpp
ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp
ScheduleDAGPrinter.cpp
2011-01-10 05:31:39 +08:00
ScoreboardHazardRecognizer.cpp
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
ShrinkWrap.cpp
ShadowStackGC.cpp
ShadowStackGCLowering.cpp
2009-08-18 02:47:11 +08:00
SjLjEHPrepare.cpp
2009-11-04 09:32:06 +08:00
SlotIndexes.cpp
SpillPlacement.cpp
SplitKit.cpp
StackColoring.cpp
StackProtector.cpp
StackSlotColoring.cpp
StackMapLivenessAnalysis.cpp
StackMaps.cpp
StatepointExampleGC.cpp
TailDuplication.cpp
TargetFrameLoweringImpl.cpp
TargetInstrInfo.cpp
TargetLoweringBase.cpp
TargetLoweringObjectFileImpl.cpp
TargetOptionsImpl.cpp
TargetRegisterInfo.cpp
TargetSchedule.cpp
TwoAddressInstructionPass.cpp
UnreachableBlockElim.cpp
VirtRegMap.cpp
WinEHPrepare.cpp
ADDITIONAL_HEADER_DIRS
${LLVM_MAIN_INCLUDE_DIR}/llvm/CodeGen
${LLVM_MAIN_INCLUDE_DIR}/llvm/CodeGen/PBQP
)
add_dependencies(LLVMCodeGen intrinsics_gen)
add_subdirectory(SelectionDAG)
add_subdirectory(AsmPrinter)
add_subdirectory(MIR)